Broadside Opinion

This fall Student Government has made it a goal to provide Vote Vans for the gubernatorial elections.

Thanks to the dedication of many members of Student Government including Student Senator Ally Bowers and Secretary of Government and Academic Affairs Ryan Huff, this Tuesday, Nov. 3, we will be following through with this initiative.

We will be providing two seven-passenger vans to take students from Sandy Creek to the local polling place at W.T. Woodson High School, which is less than 5 miles from campus. The shuttle will run from 8 a.m. until 7 p.m.

The vans will be driven by members of Student Government, and will alternate trips, with one heading to the polls while the other is departing, with the hope that no student has to wait more than a few minutes for a ride.

Not only will this event give students an opportunity to get to the polls as quickly as possible without having to block off a large portion of their day to go vote, but this year students will also be provided with non-partisan literature on both the Republican and Democratic gubernatorial candidates.

The platform information provided for both candidates will be drawn solely from the campaign websites of Bob McDonnell and Creigh Deeds.
We encourage students to review both campaign websites prior to Tuesday. Bob McDonnell (Republican): http://www.bobmcdonnell.com/. Creigh Deeds (Democrat): http://www.deedsforvirginia.com/.

The elections this week will have an impact on Mason going forward, and our goal is to have students embrace this idea and vote.

We are hoping to harness the passion of last year’s historic presidential elections and get the message out to students that the election for governor impacts our lives just as much, especially as we are college students at a public university.

With George Mason University being a public institution already facing budget cuts, having an ally in Richmond is very important.
This university relies on state funding, which varies and is heavily influenced according to who is elected as governor.

To help get the word out, Student Government first organized volunteers to register students to vote at their Fairfax address on October 5. With around 15 volunteers, we were able to register around 50 students, and provide mail-in registration forms for students wishing to register for the first time at their home address.

As this registration drive was a last minute push, Student Body President Dev Dasgupta and Chief of Staff Peter Danjczek drove the students’ registration forms to Fairfax County to personally hand in the forms that same day.

More recently, Student Government members have been chalking, speaking with student organizations, working with Mason Votes, and reaching out to the Mason Media community to get the word out about the Vote Vans.

On Election Day, Student Government will once again provide food and drinks at a snack table located in front of Parking Services at Sandy Creek, where the Vote Vans will be departing.

Also, Pi Kappa Alpha will be providing its 100+ members to volunteer on Tuesday, to promote the Vote Vans and hand out the literature on the two gubernatorial candidates.

With snacks, non-partisan literature on both candidates, and transportation being provided, we urge all students registered on campus to take advantage of this free service and vote, as the new governor will have influence on our budget and ultimately, the future of our university in the years to come.

Peter Danjczek, Chief of Staff, & Devraj Dasgupta, Student Body President, contributed to this article

In the previous issue of Broadside, a number of writers commented on the popularity of sexy Halloween costumes and expressed disapproval of it.

I agree with their misgivings and commend their efforts to bring the issue to the attention of Broadside readers. However, I think their focus is misplaced. The way I see it, criticizing acts of sexual exhibitionism in practice while supporting sexual libertarianism, or “free love,” in theory is inconsistent and pretentious.

To argue against sexually-exhibitionist Halloween costumes, while supporting sex and romantic intimacy, with little or no restraint is capricious; arguments that are not kind and based on differences in degree are fertile ground for subjective opinion, rather than reason or a consistent worldview. To criticize those who use a liberty that is based on principles you do not question is not only baseless, but hypocritical.

Like the concerned staff of Broadside, I am made uneasy by rampant exhibitionism that pervades the sexy costumes fad. However, unlike the majority of the writers or most people, I am also opposed to the pervasiveness of sexual liberalism in society.

The modern trend of sexual misbehavior in our culture is simply part of a much larger issue: The fact that sex is a subject publicized without reverence or seriousness and that sexuality is considered a means of self-fulfillment or amusement.

This radical use of the human body, fostered by the sexual revolution, has created the problems that are often bemoaned of by rightly alarmed people. The argument that these Halloween costumes are wrong because they are forced upon women by mass media and commercialization are shallow.

All human exchange is commerce. When someone employs an object as something to be shared, traded, given or exchanged, that object immediately becomes a commodity. When a woman treats her body, or more precisely her sexuality in this way, she has immediately turned herself into a commodity.

Western society traditionally holds that sexuality is to be shared between spouses. Note: This does not negate the commoditization of sexuality. It simply restricts it from public preview or wide exchange, thus making it more intimate and, by the decrease of its ready supply, more treasured.
To accommodate an entirely different sort of sexual conduct by widening sexuality’s utilization is one thing. But to support it while at the same time disparaging a legitimate application of that change is foolish.

It would be akin to support the mass production of nails by machines while decrying Home Depot for the sale of them in massive, monotonous quantities, exactly what mass production inherently facilitates.

In the same way, making sexual fondness more plentiful by breaking down the barriers that at one time restricted how people in our society shared their affection has, as night follows day, cheapened love.

If I were severely ill and needed medical attention, I would assume and hope the doctor I visited would identify a cause and propose a cure or remedy, rather than simply point out symptoms I already knew I had. I hope that we, as a society, will stop dissenting not only to those problems we have reaped but also to the sexual revolution we have sowed.

Robert Lewis
History

Brandon Minster, Staff Writer

About once a week, I have a serious discussion with myself that starts with, what do I want to be when I grow up? And usually near the top of my list is auctioneer.

The career combines the best of all other jobs. Fast, unintelligible talking, “do I hear five, five, five, do I hear wharlgurlgarble hamanahamana”, but at a much higher wage than working a fast food restaurant.

Describing people’s shameful character traits, “sold to the obese, balding woman in the back row,” but with more regular gigs than an insult comic.
Forcing people to buy things they do not want: “I’m sorry, sir, but I did see a slight motion of your head, and now you own a Rembrandt,” but without the criminal record that accompanies a career in racketeering. Auctioneering has it all. It is the wave of the future.

The future is already here in Detroit, Mich., a city poised to become the first in America, since the days of railroad speculation, to be sold completely on the auction block.

In 2007, Wayne County, Mich., officials offered 2,000 seized properties at their auction. This year they offered 9,000 properties.

More than four-fifths of the properties received no bids at all, even though the minimum bid was only $500. If they had sold for the minimum, they would have cost $3.6 million.

That much money can also buy a closet in financier Martin Zweig’s $70 million New York condo, or at least half a closet, on a time-share.

At this rate, selling the estimated 40 square miles of vacant land in Detroit is going to take a while. And once the vacant land is finally sold, they can start in on the estimated 78,000 residencies that are unoccupied. The city seems to be pacing itself because there is a rumor going around that the last guy in the city gets all the copper wiring that has been left behind.

I blame the Will Smith movie I Am Legend. It made living in a vacant city appear chic again. Prior to Smith, Americans had been conditioned through decades of Bruce Springsteen and Billy Joel music to believe vacant cities were unexciting and sad.

One must go back to the Twilight Zone episode “Time Enough at Last” in 1959 to see the last glowing portrayal of an empty urban landscape.
Now things are different. The City of Detroit is emptying faster than a junior high dance floor when the slow songs start. What remains is called an urban prairie, empty grasslands overlaid with a gridded street system. I searched Google maps for the intersection of Butternut Street and 17th Street in Detroit and it vividly showed the results, confirming the urban prairie.

One man who cannot get enough urban prairie is Alan Weisman, author of “The World Without Us.” Weisman ends his 2007 book by recommending the, “intelligent solution . . . [that] would henceforth limit every human female on Earth capable of bearing children to one.”

He assures us this would be “fairly applied,” but does not bother to clarify if this policy would be enforced through mandatory abortions or mandatory sterilizations. There is no need to get into specifics and the harsh buzz that comes from enlightenment.

The buzz, however, is all over Detroit. From enlightened auto manufacturers who failed to produce cars that would sell, to enlightened unions who failed to leave enough blood in the host industry to keep it alive, to enlightened national politicians who thought a good fuel economy standard would be a great one if it were only doubled, to enlightened local politicians who race bait at city council meetings, the place is lousy with enlightenment. You can hardly throw a brick without hitting the next American Buddha.

All this enlightenment might be intimidating to some and that might be why Wayne County cannot give away Detroit.

No one wants to move into Utopia only to find out he has to worry about whether the neighbors think he is smart enough to be there.

Better to wait for all the enlightened thinkers to leave town before coming in with the buzz-killing reality that a single condo in New York is probably worth more than the entire city of Detroit.

Alan Moore, Broadside Correspondent

Since coming to George Mason University, I have been shocked and appalled at the number of professors who are more concerned with pushing their own political agenda than actually teaching. I have had to bear professors lobbying for a variety of political ideological rants ranging from Christopher Columbus accomplishing nothing more than being a bigoted murderer to Rush Limbaugh perpetuating a fantasy system of lies and falsehoods. I also can’t seem to get through a class without hearing about how man irrefutably aids global warming. Quite frankly, I’m sick of it.

Let me be clear on this next point: If you subscribe to such beliefs, then that is fine with me, I do not really care in the slightest. I might think you’re a radical leftist, but if that is what you want to believe, then so be it. We can both think whatever we want. However, the line must absolutely be drawn when you walk into the classroom.

Professors in their ivory towers love to push their ideological values on their students because students fear that speaking up will place them in their bad graces. After all, we are all here to earn a college degree and in many cases it is better to just bite our tongues rather than risking an adverse grade.

Coincidentally, I don’t expect to earn any friends in the academic community with this article, but I can’t remain silent on this anymore.

It needs to be noted that professors do not have the right to mark you down based on your political persuasions. The American Association of University Professors states, “Student performance should be evaluated solely on an academic basis, not on opinions or conduct in matters unrelated to academic standards.”

It is downright sad that professors cannot get people in the real world to subscribe to their political beliefs so they feel they must indoctrinate their students because they have no other choice than to listen. If you are a professor who is more interested in pushing your liberal ideology than teaching, then please resign and go write for “Daily Kos” or some other leftist outlet.

I’m absolutely not advocating that professors push conservative ideology in the classroom. I think the classroom should be politically neutral unless the subject of the class pertains to such topics. In that case, professors have a duty to show both sides of an argument and let students decide for themselves.

Taking cheap shots at Rush Limbaugh does nothing to further the knowledge base of students.

The problem with our academic system is that there is no accountability. Professors are protected under the First Amendment to say whatever they want in the classroom. Legal? Yes. Ethical? Absolutely not. It’s legal to shout racial slurs, but that doesn’t make it right. The AAUP also states that “Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject.”

The AAUP even admits that a professor’s “primary responsibility to their subject is to seek and to state the truth as they see it.” That certainly leaves it open to interpretation. When it comes to politics, there are no official guidelines, but perhaps there should be.

The only existing university policy regarding this issue states that “University resources may not be used in the conduct of political activities nor may they be used to otherwise enhance participation in such activities except for use of meeting space for University approved activities.”

Promoting your political beliefs certainly falls under the category of enhanced participation in political activities and it is not a university-approved activity during class time in my opinion.

There needs to be a number of solutions to these problems. First, the university non-discrimination policy does not include anything regarding political affiliation; it absolutely should to further protect students from overzealous professors. Second, every professor at Mason should sign an agreement of understanding that it is considered unethical to promote political ideology in a classroom if it has nothing to do with the curriculum.

Third, any complaints from students should be investigated and, if found to have merit, the professors should be reprimanded. Lastly, professors who subscribe to this kind of behavior need to grow up and stop acting like children on a playground when they are in the classroom.

I believe that adopting these measures would certainly be a great start to making Mason a fair and more credible institution of higher learning. The time to do this is right now.

William Curtis, Opinion Editor

I can never say which is my favorite, the after-eating cigarette, the while-drinking-coffee cigarette or the after-crapping cigarette. They all manage to calm me down and make everything better. Over the span of time, the sanctity of cigarette smoking was so well-accepted that in a world I can never imagine . . . you could even smoke on a plane during a flight. Now, the times have clearly changed.

First they took regular buildings, then some states took restaurants and bars, and now you want to take away the only thing us smokers have left, the outdoors?

It’s bad enough that we only have 15 minutes to move from one class to another, that certainly isn’t enough time to sit, relax, and have a cigarette when you have to walk all the way across campus just to get to class on time. I mean, why don’t you just outlaw cigarettes all together?

I send these notions of disapproval to the members of George Mason University’s Environmental Action Group, whose action towards protecting the universe one Solo cup at a time are greatly appreciated . . . until you try and take my nicotine away. On their website, an anti-smoking campus ban is proposed on their “Initiatives” page.

This proposal would turn our campus into virtually what Disney World now looks like: strollers huddled in the corner as their stressed handlers pound down their “cancer sticks” in the most minimal amount of time so that their kids can go on more rides in the park.

We know Mason has designated smoking areas – 25 feet from any building – and most smokers abide by these rules.

You have to walk to campus and odds are, you are bound to run into someone who will either be smoking in front or behind you. How difficult is it to deal with the smell for just a few seconds?

We cigarette smokers know that what we are doing is unhealthy, and could possibly give us cancer and other diseases.

I’m pretty sure this is a country that allows us the right to smoke if we like, and therefore, we will do so until we realize that we want something healthier from our lives.

I am not willing to let this campus turn into a bunch of crappy sectioned-off areas where it is only acceptable to smoke. Like I previously mentioned, it is hard enough trying to get to class on time as it is, and this would only eliminate the possibility of a between-class-smoke for more students, as they clearly wouldn’t be able to sit for five or 10 minutes and still make it to class on time.

I would feel sorry for this campus if such a prohibition were made. I mean, can you imagine a campus full of nicotine-deprived students? I can imagine that it would look much like a Britney Spears concert that was canceled just as the curtains were supposed to go up, with rampage and chaos quickly ensuing.

They claim it’s a waste issue? Cigarette smokers aren’t morons; we know how to properly dispose of cigarette butts, and there are smokeless ashtrays all over campus to keep the campus clean. Cigarettes are obviously the only pieces of garbage laying around this campus, aren’t they?

I know how much students on this, or any other, campus love their cigarettes. We’re students, we’re stressed, we stay up late, or procrastinate until the last minute to get anything done. We need our cigarettes, they’re what keeps us going when the world tears us apart. OK, that might be a bit of an exaggeration, but you get my point.

Either way, I am sure every single cigarette smoker on this campus would agree with me; sign any petition against it, and make sure that any kind of smoking ban never happen on this campus! What happens when you take food away from a starving community? Chaos. Imagine the hostility that would rise due to such a ban for students? Cigarettes now, then what’s next? Coffee and Starbucks, because the litter of coffee cups is too prominent?

Whether or not I ever decide to quit smoking, I want to know that I will at least have the choice to smoke outside if I manage never to quit smoking.

Can’t you crazy cigarette Nazis be happy with the fact that we no longer have restaurants and bars? A fact that still makes me cringe when I realize I have to go outside because I can’t have a cigarette with my beer or dinner.

We are willing go outside in the cold, we do our best to accommodate you health-savvy morons, so I have to ask you all the same question. When are you going to realize we’ve given you enough of our territory? When will it be enough for you people?

Stephanie Tran, Broadside Correspondent

What’s the first thing that you think of when someone says “Halloween”? Probably orange and black, haunted houses, candy and of course, costumes. Pretty innocent, right? Sure, except that while browsing for costumes in a store or online, you’ll see several blatantly sexy costumes being sold. Of course, costume companies market these costumes towards adult women and teenage girls, but the funny thing is that, well, isn’t Halloween supposed to be scary, not sexy?

According to an Encyclopedia Britannica Online article on Halloween, “scary beings such as ghosts, witches, and vampires” became a part of Halloween over the years. Passing over arguments over whether or not vampires are attractive or not and ignoring ghosts as being, well, dead. Witches, it can be argued, are hardly attractive, never mind sexy: old, ugly women with large noses and warts, probably carrying a broomstick and sporting a pointed hat. In short, not even remotely sexy.

A quick search on websites such as CostumeHub.com soon proves you wrong. Typing in “witch” and filtering only the “sexy” costumes introduces the viewer to six sexy witches. While three of these witches sport the typical pointed hat and one even touts a broom, there’s no denying that the short skirts, high slits or plunging necklines scream “sexy” rather than “scary.”

I’ll admit, I entertained thoughts of wearing an appealing costume to be in a themed group of friends. However, my costume idea of black patent pumps, black skirt and cami, and black stockings soon disappeared as soon as the temperature plummeted (and interest from my friends waned). I have no problem with people dressing up from time to time to flaunt their “assets,” and I’m certainly not saying that Halloween should have a dress code, but I wouldn’t walk around in a tiny costume and court potential dates and a cold.

Ladies, trust me: you can be just as charming in a witch costume with long sleeves and a long skirt, not to mention being quite a bit warmer, than the skimpier versions. And after all, spending the next week or two sneezing and coughing because you wore that short skirt for one night just plain isn’t sexy.

Evan Benton, Staff Writer

While editing the Opinion section two weeks ago, I noticed a glaring omission, something even a casual reader of the Broadside Opinion section would notice the lack of: no letter to the editor.
There’s a reason why I, in particular, noticed its absence.

The Letter to the Editor section is a magical section. It allows anyone, even those that wish to remain anonymous, to say anything their little hearts desire.

Someone writes a piece on a controversial topic that is so against everything you believe in and you want to go into Broadside offices with a shotgun? Write a scathing letter instead.

Have an issue with anything that involves George Mason University but can’t seem to find a section for it? Get out your laptop and send in some beautiful opinions.

The Letter to the Editor section is especially wonderful because the writer of the letter can call out another writer in particular, almost like slapping them with the proverbial black glove and shouting “At dawn, sir!” And if that writer is so disgusted by this unmitigated, passionate bashing that he or she needs to defend himself and reply—then there’s another letter to the editor. It has the potential to be a never-ending, glorious, back-and-forth war of words.

Yes, I do work for Broadside. And yes, I’m stressing the importance of calling out us writers, us cushy staff writers and sycophantic correspondents. We write a lot of stuff, and we feel that what we write is not only completely relevant, but bulletproof.

We’re wrong.

And this isn’t even limited to the bloviating seen in the Opinion section every week. Look at the bloated cow that is the Style section, with its questionable music reviews and worthless social commentaries. Half of the articles I’ve written this semester have been about food of all things. Isn’t that irritating?

Before Columbus Day, brave conservative writer Alan Moore wrote “Global Warming: The Falsehood Coming To A Campus Near You,” and was subsequently mangled a week later by four different letters to the editor where his facts, his journalistic integrity and even his ignorance of the world’s problems due to a “privileged life” were called out. With respect to Mr. Moore, this is exactly the kind of thing that should happen.

Because this is America, and this is college, and you’re angry. Why should people that have no idea what they’re talking about be paid to publish articles every week while you sit in your room ripping out your hair?

Do something about it.

Write a Letter.

Brandon Minster, Broadside Correspondent

President Barack Obama has a lot on his plate. Between adjudicating misdemeanors in Cambridge, Mass., opining about the proceedings at the MTV Video Music Awards, demonizing a non-friendly news agency, and advocating for a college football playoff, no one can really blame the man if unemployment is on its way past 10 percent. Clearly he’s busy.

Not to fear. While our country is shedding high-wage technical jobs, others are growing in those very sectors. If you happen to enjoy sunny Mediterranean climes, pistachios that get your fingers all red, gasoline that costs less than 50 cents per gallon, and oppressive Islamic republics, scores of jobs await you in the promising field of nuclear technology.

According to Mark Hosenball in Newsweek, Iran followed its 2003 “halting” of its atomic weapons program by, well, immediately restarting its atomic weapons program.

In Iran’s defense, though, it should be noted that, since even Denny’s now closes for Christmas, every business can be said to “halt” every once in a while.

It’s the length of the halting that matters. One man’s halt is another’s dramatic pause.

The problem is the nature of diplomatic language, which doesn’t really differentiate between halting and catching one’s breath. This deficiency might need correction soon, as it seems every time the International Atomic Energy Agency secures promises of halting weapons programs, the promising nations start things back up pretty quickly.

To slightly exaggerate, on one particular trip to Iran, Hans Blix was shown the “halted” centrifuges and left to catch his plane back to Belgium (official name: Netherlands Junior).

When he got to the car he remembered he’d left his hat inside, whereupon he opened the door to find centrifuges spinning like a toked-up hippie girl at a Phish concert.

The world’s thugs have been of two minds about how to handle weapons inspectors. Some end their programs and say they didn’t, while some don’t end their programs and say they did. The first group was lead by Saddam Hussein, who thought the international community should be satisfied with a, “Come on, guys, you know me” level of verification.

Iran subscribes to the other school of thought. Hardly a month goes by that it isn’t halting its nuclear program. But don’t let that discourage you from applying for one of the technical jobs. Somehow the program has a way of starting itself back up every month.

I once had a radio like that. I gave it to GoodWill. Iran is not seriously considering doing the same.
Of course, we have nothing to worry about. Americans have a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate in the Oval Office. Not so much for anything he’s actually done for peace, but more for the fact that, you know, he likes peace. And that should be worth a fancy dinner in Norway.

Unfortunately, some people aren’t swayed by fancy awards. I was a two-time geography bowl champion in high school, but not everyone wanted to be my friend as a result.

Peace prizes have a way of not bringing peace as effectively as strength. David Von Drahle of Time recognizes as much when he argues that the Nobel Prize should more rightly be given to nuclear weapons than to those seeking a nuclear-free world.

Perhaps the president’s lack of focus on the nuclear threat is really just a way to kill two birds with one stone.

If nuclear weapons make us safer, then handing them out like toasters with new checking accounts is the safest thing of all, and if our country isn’t going to make any more jobs on its own, allowing every tinhorn despot to start up an expensive weapons program is a great way to find work for unemployed scientists and technicians.

If he keeps coming up with ingenious employment schemes like this, he might find himself with the Nobel Prize in economics, an award that historically is more rewarding of actual results than grand intentions. And if his plan doesn’t work, it’s not like any of us will still be alive to say, “I told you so.”

Kenny Tindal, Broadside Correspondent

Throughout my freshman year, when we were still allowed to have the Freedom meal plan, I wished I could use my money off campus. Even now there are many nights where I opt to stay on campus and eat at Taco Bell than go out to Old Town or University Mall because my Freedom was so high, but my wallet was so thin.

I think it is only natural to want to explore and see what is out there, and when you are from a different county or even state and your outside funds are not limitless, and it is hard, knowing you probably should be eating on campus instead. George Mason University should be encouraging their residential students to leave campus, and see what Fairfax has to offer them. Students who have a flexible meal plan usable off campus will find themselves out in Fairfax and exploring more.

The universities solution to off campus dining is Mason Money, which can basically turn your Mason ID card into a debit card; usable at many places on and off campus, such as University Theatres at University Mall, and Chipotle on Lee Highway. Students can add money to their card account at anytime online, in person, or even by mail.

This is a step in the right direction, but I believe eating off campus should be more than a treat for those of us with meal plans. I believe we should be able to take the CUE at a moment’s notice and go somewhere in Old Town and not worry if you will still have enough money to buy Modern Warfare 2.

If Freedom Funds were used off campus, it would bring much needed life and business to Old Town Fairfax. Even after the recent renovation in Old Town, many restaurants are not getting the kind of customer flow they were expecting, and some are planning to close down after their leases are up. GMU students should be eating there often to help, and I can think of no better way to move that along than to upgrade meal plans so they are functional off campus.

University Services does however have a very good reason for not wanting students using meal plans off campus, and that is because they would lose money that would normally be put back into food services on campus. Losing this money would make food costs rise, and the general quality of food on campus decrease.

I love the food on campus, and it is one of the many reasons I decided to come to GMU in the first place. But I see this as a good competition between services, and it would force the dining services in GMU to get better and better to draw in students. They are already the most convenient food option for residential students, but then they would also have to keep improving to keep students eating on campus, and I think that is a good thing.

In conclusion, with all the benefits meal plans off campus can offer for students, such as a reason to explore Fairfax, helping Old Town Fairfax, and even making our on campus dining better than before, I hope University Services feels the same way.

Brandon Minster, Broadside Correspondent

In America’s perpetual electioneering, the moment Barack Obama took the presidential oath of office the midterm election campaign began. Prognosticators make a living by discussing such things on cable news channels, often making up for a lack of insight with an overabundance of hot air. “My opponent wants to pay for (social program/defensive weapon) by cutting spending for (defensive weapon/social program), all while balancing the budget on the backs of the (poor/rich), which will benefit no one but the (rich/poor).” Using this formula five times in 10 minutes will get you a guest spot on the McLaughlin Group; using it 10 times in five minutes will get you your own show on CNBC.

Currently, the presidency and both houses of Congress are controlled by the Democratic Party. The Republican opposition looks at the incredibly low Congressional approval poll numbers (which has skyrocketed to 26 percent from a low last fall of 14 percent, according to realclearpolitics.com) and salivates. Wait until next year, they think, and they will ride the wave of disapproval to electoral victory.

The problem is that congressional disapproval is nothing new. In fact, Congress’ approval rating has been at or below 50 percent for over six years, according to gallup.com. Three congressional elections have come and gone, and still not once has Congress garnered the approval of even a bare majority of Americans.
This seems strange. Even in the post-election honeymoon, for the past six years, voters haven’t approved of the Congress they elected. I once knew of a couple who got married on a Saturday, argued that Sunday, and contacted divorce attorneys on Monday. But at least even they approved of each other at the reception Saturday night.

Historically, approval has been tied to the political party of the respondent. Thus, Republicans tend to favor a Republican Congress and Democrats favor a Democratic Congress. But for the past few years, poll respondents from both parties disapproved of Congress nearly equally, regardless of which party had a congressional majority.

This means that each election voters go to the polls and say to the ruling party, “I hate you,” and then have to wait two years to tell the former opposition party, “I hate you, too.” This is probably what will happen next November, when the current dislike of Congress expresses itself as a loss for Democrats.

The shame with this result is that it can’t be a loss for Democrats without being a victory for Republicans. When one of the two parties wins a congressional election, they think it had something to do with how great they are, while what America is trying to tell them is, “It’s been a while since we’ve seen how badly you suck and we are hoping you’ve turned your act around.”

They have not, in fact, turned their act around. Why would they? They don’t need to gain voter approval to win an election, they just have to make sure the voters hate them slightly less than the alternative.

This was not a winning formula when I got married. I did not sell myself to my wife by pointing out that some other potential husband was twice the jerk I was. I actually had to be desirable, not simply less repulsive, because my wife would have said, “I’m not limited to just the two of you jerks.”

The American electorate, however, has limited itself to two jerks. Ending the relationship with one jerk makes the other think he’s desirable, and ends whatever incentive he had to change. If America wants a Congress it can approve of, if it dislikes the idea of approval numbers getting to 26 percent by “skyrocketing,” then it has to look beyond the two jerks.

I lived in California during the 2003 gubernatorial recall election. In countless conversations, friends would say to me, “I prefer Candidate X, but he can’t win, so I’m going to vote for Candidate Y.”

A candidate can’t win so long as his supporters think he can’t. The biggest supporters of the myth that a third-party candidate can’t win an election are the two established parties. American politics used to see the births and deaths of all sorts of political parties. The Republican Party was founded in 1852, and within eight years had its presidential candidate elected to the White House. As the midterm election comes into swing this coming year, consider looking beyond the two jerks for a party you can actually support, not just a party you hate slightly less than others.